Jihad, terror not the same

O'Reilly believes that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is a jihadist and, therefore, he is a terrorist. According to O'Reilly's understanding, "jihad" and "terror" are synonymous. From such a misconception, he is blaming President Barack Obama for not declaring the Ford Hood shooting an act of terror by a Muslim jihadist.

However, if O'Reilly did some research, he would have no problem finding that "jihad" and "terror" are two completely different things. In fact, "jihad" is just the opposite word for "terror." To say that all jihadists are terrorists is to say that everything cold is also hot. The Arabic word jihad has many connotations, such as to strive, to struggle, to exert, to fight, and to make effort for individual and spiritual accomplishment and refinement.

Does it have any military connotation? Yes, Quran suggests believers have the rights to defend themselves by going to organized war (not terrorism) for self-defense at times when they believe their existence is threatened, which some people, subsequently, termed "holy war." Christianity also has such a holy war, called crusade. However, we all know the days of jihad or crusade to signify religious holy war are over. So, when a disgruntled or mentally unstable person cries "jihad" or "crusade," he or she does not automatically become a jihadist or crusader.

Besides, jihad, or crusade, is not supposed to be carried out by individuals. In the Middle Ages, at the dawn of the spread of new religions, such military adventures were carried out by organized countries to save their territory or to drive out nonbelievers from adjacent territories, anticipating threats from them. So, to believe that an individual killed 13 people in the U.S. to save or glorify his religion is ridiculous.

On the other hand, terrorism is a political term. Creating terror is the only weapon of less-powerful people against the most powerful. Less-powerful people cannot fight a regular war to win. They know it's impossible, so they want to terrorize a most-powerful person or country by inflicting maximum pain and suffering.

Islam and every major religion strongly denounce terrorism. During Imperialism, many British colonies started terrorizing British army and personnel to achieve independence. British called them terrorists, but, in their own countries, they were known as freedom fighters. Even in the U.S., when George Washington and his supporters started terrorizing the British army, he was called a terrorist by the British.

So, the origin and development of terrorism are associated with political grievances of a group of people. In fact, terrorism is a relative term. Someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. Terrorism has nothing to do with religion. Islam and other major religions do not endorse terrorizing people to convert them.

Prophet Mohammad in his final address in a gathering of Hajj (annual pilgrimage to Mecca) in the field of Arafat, announced: "Everyone is entitled to his or her religion. Do not fight over religion. The right path is clearly separated from the wrong path."

It is a fact of life that whether someone practices his religion or not, a person grows up with his own religion and culture. So, when a Christian gets angry or surprised, he or she might cry out loud, "Jesus." It's very natural.

On the other hand, when a Muslim becomes disgruntled or mentally unstable, that person might shout, "Allah hu Akbar" (God is great).

It is sad that O'Reilly does not understand this fact of life. Therefore, he constructed this logical fallacy: "And then yelling, "Allah Akbar"(God is great), while gunning down innocent people, the math is on the blackboard. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is a terrorist; he murdered 13 people in the name of jihad."

With such faulty logic, he blamed President Obama for not immediately declaring this tragedy an act of terror.